MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141327607 · doi:10.1109/qsic.2008.53

A Boundary Checking Technique for Testing Real-Time Systems Modeled as Timed Input Output Automata (Short Paper)

2008· article· en· W2141327607 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatonComputer scienceTimed automatonSet (abstract data type)Transition systemProcess (computing)Boundary (topology)State (computer science)Finite-state machineModel checkingAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behavior of real-time systems depends not only on their interaction with the environment but also on very rigid time constraints that puts restrictions on when these interactions take place. The timing aspect of such systems renders the testing process difficult without defining adequate test selection criteria that ensure good coverage of the system while keeping the number of needed test cases considerably low. In this paper, we propose a method for testing real-time systems, formally modeled as Timed Input Output Automata (TIOA), which aims at generating a set of test cases that would allow us to check every transition of the TIOA as soon as possible, as late as possible, and at the middle between these two executions. The execution times of every transition are determined based on the minimum and maximum delays between the source state of the transition and its clock guards.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207